posted Dec-29-2005 08:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Run Page Run:
Ridgeline, it sounds like your in really good shape.

---

I'm not sure that is the case. I am not a super runner just trying to be humble here, but it could be that I train a lot of long and slow stuff that my aerobic base is good.

My guess is that i need to train faster more often, while it sounds like others needs to slow down a bit. My race pace times are generally about the same as my MAF from @ 9 min/mile to 11 depending on distance (10K to 50K). Not too much variation. I got to hit the track!!

to those more experienced, does this assessment sound plausible?

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 08:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ridgeline:
My race pace times are generally about the same as my MAF from @ 9 min/mile to 11 depending on distance (10K to 50K). Not too much variation. I got to hit the track!!

to those more experienced, does this assessment sound plausible?

---

IMHO this doesn't sound right. I guess one factor to consider would be how much effort you put into your races. Do you enter a race and simply run the distance at an easy pace? Do you run the race and feel spent at the end of the race? You don't even need to feel "spent" to bump over MAF. You will probably be running over MAF if you are even slightly winded. If it is the latter, then your MAF number can't be correct. If you are racing at such an easy pace that you could comfortably converse and are not stressed at all, then you may not be "racing" in the typical sense. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but just something to consider.

I suspect that you may have a lower Max HR than average and you probably need to slow down. Keep in mind even the MAF formula is based on averages. There are approximately 20% of people who don't fall within the average.

I apologize if you incidated an actual Max HR in your earlier posts. I don't remember you indicating an actual Max HR test.

Just as a baseline for you, when I run at my MAF I don't breath hard at all. I run on country roads and have had several conversations with myself just to see how easy it would be to converse. I could probably read an entire book out loud if I could somehow read it while running . I can also run forever. The only indication of stress is at the end of a long run (14+ miles), my muscles are SLIGHTLY fatigued.

I have been running for about 5 years and have run between 25-45 miles per week. I have had several injuries and am well aware when I begin to stress my body (this was all learned with hindsight). I am currently running 35-45 MPW and feel great. I would never have been able to run this mileage in the past without MANY aches and pains due the faster pace I was running.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 09:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ksabbo:
IMHO this doesn't sound right. I guess one factor to consider would be how much effort you put into your races. Do you enter a race and simply run the distance at an easy pace? Do you run the race and feel spent at the end of the race?

---

Ksabbo -
you make some good points. Most "races" i enter i use just as training runs, and I rarely enter anything less than marathon.
When i run, I too feel very relaxed, can hold conversation, and go for a while. My MAF max was @ 150. i set the HRM to 150 with a low range of 142. My average for the run was 147. I felt great, ran slow...same as most runs.

I think there are different "groups" of runners on this forum, many of which race at shorter distances than myself and may not be running in their aerobic range as much as those of us that run long and slow for longer distance races. 2 cents...

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 12:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ridgeline:
.......When i run, I too feel very relaxed, can hold conversation, and go for a while. My MAF max was @ 150. i set the HRM to 150 with a low range of 142. My average for the run was 147. I felt great, ran slow...same as most runs.
................

---

IMO, you don't need to speed up, you need to slow down. To me it sounds like you've gotten all you can out of running at 150, but not maximized improvement by running at a lower HR. If you push down and stay strictly below 145, you'll slow down at first, but should eventually be running 9m/m at 145. Once you see improvement at 145 you can keep pushing down to stay below 140 and continue the process. Once you're running a 9m/m (or faster) at 140 you should be able to run about 1-2min faster at 150-155 and still not be straining. If you find that you don't see any improvement (over 6 weeks) at 145 then you should add speedwork.

just my 2 cents.... good luck.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 12:51 PM               

If your races are that relaxed, you may very well be correct that your "easy" training has already been at the lower HR zone.

I think the reason this is questioned over and over again is that MANY of us thought we were training easy too. I know I thought I was training easy because I did feel very good at the end of my runs. I didn't feel that I was pushing myself until at least halfway through a run . Then I would finish the run at the same pace I started, and feel satisfied that I maintained the pace and got a "good" work out. That is at least how my training runs were for the 2-3 months prior to Maff training. Prior to that, I was running pretty easy because I was recovering from injuries.

Funny thing is that I used to be notorious for running easy. I didn't buy into the "run hard on a long run" thing. I think I was probably doing the right thing since I was running injury free and my race times were continually improving. Several of my friends didn't understand how I could run so easy and then have race times that were so competitive.

Then I started running with a group, many who ran much faster than me. It wasn't as if I couldn't keep up with the group, but I just didn't see the point in working so hard on a long run. Then I began to occasionally run a fast long run. I got tired of always being in the back of the pack. I don't even think I realized it, but soon enough all the long runs were being run hard. I started getting serious aches and pains and eventually had multiple stress fractures over the past couple of years. I didn't race for at least a year because I was recovering from injuries.

Sorry for the rambling, but you can see how our perception of running easy can be skewed.

Karen

Edited to add...the above post makes some great points. I obviously haven't reached a point in Maff to move to the next step. Slowing down to reach the next level makes more sense to me. I guess it would be just too far fetched to believe that you have maximized your HR training without even trying.

[This message has been edited by Ksabbo (edited Dec-29-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 01:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by portlander:
tpr55, do you take in a lot of caffeine? It will definitely raise your HR. I don't have any of my own data to support this, but I noticed a big difference in my HR over the summer when I ran before I had my coffee. At the time, I wasn't training by heart rate, so I didn't really care; 9:00/mile felt about the same whether I drank coffee or not, but the difference was approx 5-8 beats on the HRM.

My New Year's resolution will be to stop drinking coffee. It's going to be a tough one, but it will be so much easier to get through if I see an impact on my running!

---

well, yes, actually, I do drink quite a bit of coffee. That's an interesting thought.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ridgeline:
.........When i run, I too feel very relaxed, can hold conversation, and go for a while. My MAF max was @ 150. i set the HRM to 150 with a low range of 142. My average for the run was 147. I felt great, ran slow...same as most runs.

.......

---

What is your actual maximum heart rate? Not your MAF HR.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 03:19 PM               

Anyhow, I don't think I need to read any of the books mentioned because of the great information presented here on an almost daily basis. Thanks Jesse, Jimmy, Steve, and the many others who post regularly, for your great questions, answers and reports. It's very inspiring.

------------------
Me

My Log

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 03:49 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 04:31 PM            

6m total, 11.30 AM, 48d
5.3m timed- MAF- 55.31, 10.28p, 132 bpm avg, 140 peak, 51.09 on HRM, 608 cals
OUT- 26.57, 10.10p, 133 bpm
BACK- 28.34, 10.47p
Sick yesterday and today, which probably factored in decision to stay with the MAF pace today. Interesting that I felt like today I was able to surrender a bit more; perhaps today's 132 avg was where I should have been all along with this stuff, even though the higher pace today didn't do much for the ego. I don't know, about the time I'm ready to throw in the towel something makes me think I need to stay with it and get it right……….? Could it be if I stay to a stricter <135 level like today I may start to see some pace improvements, even though the improvements will come from a newer, slower pace than ever, like today's 10.28? But what pace improvements are going to make this worthwhile? Down to 9.00mm, or lower? Or even only to 9.30-9.45?? And is it worth the gains to have to do this for 3-6 mos at a time, only to see the benefits decay fairly quickly once you start another progressive program to regain speed?

IP: Logged

posted Dec-29-2005 05:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tpr55:
notes to myself on today's MAF installment.........

.........Could it be if I stay to a stricter <135 level like today I may start to see some pace improvements, even though the improvements will come from a newer, slower pace than ever, like today's 10.28? But what pace improvements are going to make this worthwhile? Down to 9.00mm, or lower? Or even only to 9.30-9.45?? And is it worth the gains to have to do this for 3-6 mos at a time, only to see the benefits decay fairly quickly once you start another progressive program to regain speed?

---

I think you're likely to see some benefit by staying under 135 for a few weeks. Granted you're starting at a slower pace, but it will improve. It is very important to keep in mind that as your pace at the lower HR improves your pace at higher HRs is also improving> Despite not even running at those higher HRs. If you can run a 9m/m at 130-135, then 7m/m isn't out of the question at around 150-155. And with proper LT training after base building you could maintain that pace for a good long run. I don't know where your paces were prior to this, but the trade-off may be worth it.

Only you can decide how far to take the pace improvements at the low-end. If you have the time, then go as long as possible until you hit a real plateau. If you come up against scheduled races, then stop and jump into your normal training approach. You can start again next year. But 3 months, starting now, probably isn't unreasonable. Dedicating at least 3 months a year to base building is recommended by many coaches.

also, you won't lose your entire aerobic base during the race season. This means next year you'll be building on a better foundation than this year and so on. It is likely you could see some decent improvements for years to come, as long as you incorporate a solid base building phase each year. In addition, base building next year may not take quite as long. This year it's 5-6 months to maximize, next year maybe 3-4months.

If you race, then it is probably worth it, since the goal is to run fast during races not training. Give your ego some delayed gratification by slowing down during base building.

Good luck.

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-29-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 01:04 PM            

For instance, today the test I made today. 20 min warmup (run to the track) followed by 6 X 1600 at my slow pace. The results were:

10:51 HR 124
11:06 HR 123
11:08 HR 124
11:07 HR 126
11:15 HR 127
11:07 HR 127

I tried to run at an even effort level, and the also with the same effort level I have been using for the past few weeks. There was more upwards drift that I expected and more than I usually get on a run. Stupidly, I forgot to drink a drop for the whole time, so, though the pace is nice and easy, after an hour there must have been some dehydration. I had a drink after the test which gave a lower HR for the run back home. Still, my question is: can I conclure anything useful from these results?

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 01:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Would anyone care to comment on cardiac drift as a measure of max pace for low HR training?

For instance, today the test I made today. 20 min warmup (run to the track) followed by 6 X 1600 at my slow pace. The results were:

10:51 HR 124
11:06 HR 123
11:08 HR 124
11:07 HR 126
11:15 HR 127
11:07 HR 127

I tried to run at an even effort level, and the also with the same effort level I have been using for the past few weeks. There was more upwards drift that I expected and more than I usually get on a run. Stupidly, I forgot to drink a drop for the whole time, so, though the pace is nice and easy, after an hour there must have been some dehydration. I had a drink after the test which gave a lower HR for the run back home. Still, my question is: can I conclure anything useful from these results?

---

All things being equal, if you were properly hydrated you'd probably see either even pace and slight HR rise, or steady HR and slight slow down. The fact that you saw both probably means you should drink more for runs of an hour or more. This assumes you were steady at the pace v. HR before this run and environmental conditions were not a factor. Also, maybe you weren't as warmed up as you thought.

On the other hand, I saw this type of trend about 10 days ago, which turned out to be 2 days before I was symptomatic with a mild cold/flu. I suspect I was already fighting it off, but I didn't have any obvious symptoms. I was slower and HR rise was a few beats higher and faster than typical for my runs.

--jm

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 02:07 PM            

I'll try it again in a couple of weeks and see how it looks then. Basically, I am pleased with how things are going. Since I started three weeks ago, my slow pace has increased noticibly and my HR dropped a few beats. I am looking to bringing it down a notch more -perhaps from 124 to 120. This will give me more of a 'cushion'. I have noticed that my HR is usually much more resiliant at low rates than it was three weeks ago. Generally it seems to climb slower and is much less likely to balloon up on a hill or in a wind - unless I am very tired, thirsty or sick. Sometines it's like the rate is stuck in a grouve. So I am pleased and will continue.

BTW. Anyone looked into Hadd's stuff. I was reading an article where he recommends training at Max minus 50. Very similar idea to Maffatone's estimate, but a bit more severe. Ha! I did not think that was possible

(Maffetone's estimate is merely Max minus 40 with a couple of fudge factors thrown in).

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Hi jm

BTW. Anyone looked into Hadd's stuff. I was reading an article where he recommends training at Max minus 50. Very similar idea to Maffatone's estimate, but a bit more severe. Ha! I did not think that was possible

(Maffetone's estimate is merely Max minus 40 with a couple of fudge factors thrown in).

---

Since MAF is not based on MaxHR, any actual relationship between Hadd's easy HR target and Maffetone's is entirely coincidental and dependent on your age, MaxHR and Maffetone fitness factor (+-5). For me, Hadd and unadjusted MAF are virtually identical and are within 1bpm. For a 25yo with maxHR 195 the difference is 10bpm.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 03:01 PM            

I'm totally sweating this MAF training. My MAF is 155 and I don't know how to adjust it. That = 76% max HR for me (In another post I said 80 % but redid max HR test on a hill and it worked out to be 203 bpm and not 191 as in my first test done earlier). Anyways I subtracted 5 and have been running at 150 bpm for 2 weeks now. Right off the bat I could hold a steady pace of 10:30-11:00 m/m for 10 miles (don't have to slow down to maintain HR). I can hold a choppy conversation at about 147-148-149 bpm. I usually average 146 bpm throughout the run. I'm afraid I'm still overdoing it thus not getting the benifits of this type of training. I read Hadd's approach and he suggest(in his Joe example) 50bpm under MHR for your easiest runs. For me that would be 153 bpm.

Two questions that come to mind. How does one know his AT?
Is it possible to run at to low of a HR to recieve any benifits?

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 03:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:
Since MAF is not based on MaxHR, any actual relationship between Hadd's easy HR target and Maffetone's is entirely coincidental and dependent on your age, MaxHR and Maffetone fitness factor (+-5). For me, Hadd and unadjusted MAF are virtually identical and are within 1bpm. For a 25yo with maxHR 195 the difference is 10bpm.

---

If MAF were based on maxHR it would be more reasonable. However it is based on 180 - age. This is identical with the normal estimation for max HR of 220 - age.

All Maffatone is saying is "train more than 40 beats below your max you get using the 220 - age calculation"

All Hadd is saying is "train at 50 beats below your actual measured max"

To say that Maffatone does not use max HR is misleading.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
If MAF were based on maxHR it would be more reasonable. However it is based on 180 - age. This is identical with the normal estimation for max HR of 220 - age.

All Maffatone is saying is "train more than 40 beats below your max you get using the 220 - age calculation"

All Hadd is saying is "train at 50 beats below your actual measured max"

To say that Maffatone does not use max HR is misleading.

---

It is not clear that 180-age and 220-age are related. Maffetone claims they are not. Even if I assume the same methodology to find those formulas (curve fit to real data), I would be hard pressed to compare them more than superficially. Particularly, without the underlying data and methodology. Relating it to the 220-age formula may or may not, in fact be valid, it may just be a coincidence of numbers.

I think you can compare the Maffetone formula to training zones based on percentage of maxHR or VO2max, but only assuming the maximums have been found by a valid method.

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-30-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 07:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
Would anyone care to comment on cardiac drift as a measure of max pace for low HR training?

For instance, today the test I made today. 20 min warmup (run to the track) followed by 6 X 1600 at my slow pace. The results were:

10:51 HR 124
11:06 HR 123
11:08 HR 124
11:07 HR 126
11:15 HR 127
11:07 HR 127

I tried to run at an even effort level, and the also with the same effort level I have been using for the past few weeks. There was more upwards drift that I expected and more than I usually get on a run. Stupidly, I forgot to drink a drop for the whole time, so, though the pace is nice and easy, after an hour there must have been some dehydration. I had a drink after the test which gave a lower HR for the run back home. Still, my question is: can I conclure anything useful from these results?

---

seems like we've had a similar exchange before, but I still don't understand the logic .... what you call "effort" is measured by your HR. You may THINK you have a good feel for perceived effort, but your body is telling you EXACTLY how hard you're working by how hard/fast your heart is pumping. You also allow the OTHER variable in the test to climb at the same time, which makes it much more difficult to draw conclusions. Seems to me you should try to maintain a pace and measure HR changes/drift, or maintain HR and measure decay in pace. One needs to be constant or your results are very difficult to define. One constant, one variable.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 10:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

If you really can't get thru a week at MAF and you had been doing your earlier running at 155 you could ease into MAF.

Try the following approach:
Push your HR down to 150, which should be marginally slower than your 155 pace. When you see an incremental improvement (e.g. 20-30s/mi), push down another 5bpm. Now you're running at 145; you will slow down again. When you see an improvement at 145, push down again. Now you're running at 140, you're not walking, and you are running close to a pace at 140 that you could previously only hit at 150 or 155. Continue to run at 140, which is under MAF for you, as long as you improve or until you need to step up the marathon training.

It's not strictly maffetone and will delay the other benefits of staying strictly low, but it will allow you to build up the miles, increase your pace, lower your HR and eventually get to run at your MAF HR.

I more or less backed into this particular approach when I decided to base build. I'd read about Maffetone, but thought other approaches suited me better. Eventually it got to the point where I had nothing to lose and could easily run below MAF.

Since a fall marathon would be 9-10 months away, you have plenty of time to try this approach. 2-3 months to push the HR down to MAF. At least 3 months at MAF and then 3-4 months (12-16 weeks) to do a marathon training plan thru the end of september. You'll be all set for a marathon in October.
whatever you do stick with it.

--jm

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).]

[This message has been edited by junkmiles (edited Dec-27-2005).]

---

That's what I would do as well. Don't spend all of your time
walking (or 10%) unless you want to. Ease your way down.
Take your time or try it again at a later point.

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 10:40 PM               

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 11:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by junkmiles:

It is not clear that 180-age and 220-age are related. Maffetone claims they are not. Even if I assume the same methodology to find those formulas (curve fit to real data), I would be hard pressed to compare them more than superficially. Particularly, without the underlying data and methodology. Relating it to the 220-age formula may or may not, in fact be valid, it may just be a coincidence of numbers.

---

The 220 age formla for max HR estimation assumes that we start life at a known maxHR and decline by one beat per year. It is widely known that (a) we don't all start with the same heart rate, and (b) we don't all decline by exactly one beat per year. Still, it gives a reasonable stab at a value in the absense of any test data.

The Maffatone formula assumes we start life at a known MAF and decline by exactly one beat per year. This is identical mathematically to the 220 rule has identical assumptions and must suffer exactly the same difficiencies. He may have done scores of independent tests and found he could not improve on the 220-age formula one bit, but that does not protect him from its limitations.

So one my well ask why does he not say just: "take 40 off your max and apply my 'fudge factors'?"

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Dec-30-2005).]

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 11:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Hey all!!

I'm totally sweating this MAF training. My MAF is 155 and I don't know how to adjust it. That = 76% max HR for me (In another post I said 80 % but redid max HR test on a hill and it worked out to be 203 bpm and not 191 as in my first test done earlier). Anyways I subtracted 5 and have been running at 150 bpm for 2 weeks now. Right off the bat I could hold a steady pace of 10:30-11:00 m/m for 10 miles (don't have to slow down to maintain HR). I can hold a choppy conversation at about 147-148-149 bpm. I usually average 146 bpm throughout the run. I'm afraid I'm still overdoing it thus not getting the benifits of this type of training. I read Hadd's approach and he suggest(in his Joe example) 50bpm under MHR for your easiest runs. For me that would be 153 bpm.

Two questions that come to mind. How does one know his AT?
Is it possible to run at to low of a HR to recieve any benifits?

---

4 things:

0. Don't sweat this approach. It's supposed to be easy. MAF may be too high for some folks. You have to see what works for you. If you're not seeing results then push down.

1. Hadd actually suggests that you run easy at 145 or lower if your maxHR is north of 195, even if its north of 200. I'd push your easy runs below 145. leitnerj (started this thread) has a maxHR of 210 and did his running below 145 and got great results. If you're currently averaging 146 then dropping down a couple more beats shouldn't be too frustrating.

2. A real lactate test will indicate what your AT is. In the absence of that there are a few ways to estimate. This article (aimed at triathletes) discusses some approaches to find various threshold HRs (not sure the link works) http://www.trifuel.com/triathlon/triathlon-training/how-to-set-accurate-training-zones-000573.phphttp://www.trifuel.com/triathlon/triathlon-training/how-to-set-accurate-training-zones-000573.php

3. Too low it takes too long to get any benefit or there is no stress on the overall system (sitting on the couch). I believe Maffetone recommends running within 10bpm of MAF and Mark Allen said to run between 90-100% of MAF.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-30-2005 11:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by briandirect:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by junkmiles:
[b]
It is not clear that 180-age and 220-age are related. Maffetone claims they are not. Even if I assume the same methodology to find those formulas (curve fit to real data), I would be hard pressed to compare them more than superficially. Particularly, without the underlying data and methodology. Relating it to the 220-age formula may or may not, in fact be valid, it may just be a coincidence of numbers.

---

So one my well ask why does he not say just: "take 40 off your max and apply my 'fudge factors'?"

[This message has been edited by briandirect (edited Dec-30-2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

While it certainly sounds reasonable, I don't think it works that way.
My max is 210, so if I subtract 40, I'm left with 170, just about at
my anaerobic threshold. If you were to read Hadd's writings, he
uses %HRmax, unless your HR is above a certain value, and then
he says, just keep it under 140 (or something like that). The 180
formula (for whatever reason) does not correlate with the famous
max heart rate line fit (although the assumption is still that you
lose one beat per year).

------------------
MyRunningLog

MyStuff

IP: Logged

posted Dec-31-2005 12:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leitnerj:
While it certainly sounds reasonable, I don't think it works that way.
My max is 210, so if I subtract 40, I'm left with 170, just about at
my anaerobic threshold. If you were to read Hadd's writings, he
uses %HRmax, unless your HR is above a certain value, and then
he says, just keep it under 140 (or something like that). The 180
formula (for whatever reason) does not correlate with the famous
max heart rate line fit (although the assumption is still that you
lose one beat per year).

---

Let's say you are 30 . The 220 formula would give you a max of 190. Maffatone would give you a simple MAF of 150. 190 - 150 = 40.

I am 56. The 220 formula would give me a max of 164. Maffatone would give me a simple MAF of 124. 164 - 124 = 40.

We could have got the same result just subtracting 40 from our estimated max.

Your actual max is higher than predicted using the 220, your actual MAF must also be higher than predicted using 180 rule.

IP: Logged